New Delhi: Congress Trinamool MP Sukhendu Sekhar Ray has questioned the Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah to “sudden needs” to seek “comprehensive change” in the country’s criminal law, and steps to seek suggestions for change without determining “what comprehensive change is meant”.
The Minister of Home Affairs has sent a letter, December 31, 2021, to members of Parliament and others who are looking for advice for “comprehensive reviews” of three criminal laws – Indian criminal code (IPC, 1860), criminal procedure code (CRPC, 1973)) and Law – India evidence (1872) – to provide “speedy justice”.
Shah sought suggestions from justice, including the main justice of India, MPs and the main minister for amendments in three criminal laws and also asked CJI High Court, Union region administrators, council bars and legal universities on their advice for their “legal framework.” In a letter to Shah on Monday (accessed by TOI), Ray said: “To suddenly the determination to make a comprehensive change in the criminal legal framework seems wrong place.” It is interesting that suggestions have been sought by the Minister of Home Affairs without revealing “what changes” government considered, Ray said, “What comprehensive change is being ordered has been removed in your communication.
This is surprising …
a comprehensive review of criminal law …
adopting them with The aspirations of our people and creating legal structures centered on people is a very good abstract concept, less specific …
except fast justice, what you are trying to be disseminated is blurred., It’s not clear and difficult to understand ..
, equally puzzled is the need to bring a paradigm shift in the “criminal justice system” …
what has been tried to describe in your communication is still not clear.
“” As an MP, I would kindly ask you nicely to reveal the purpose of specifics that try to be achieved by pondering change of sweeping like that, regardless of the goal of reaching to Fast Adilan, “said TMC’s head in the letter.
In fact, he suggested, “towards achieving rapid justice, we need to create a modern justice infrastructure, appoint more judges, and implement the law even,” highlighting the problem that needs to be done by the government.
Ray stated “Uttter’s surprise” to the government has “already wrote to honor the main justice of India, Hon’ble Chair of the High Court, invited suggestions, and wrote to parliamentarians like me …
The Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Guard …
Very inappropriate to search The input from the residents of the highest Constitutional Court …
The action of the Ministry of Rumah Union also violates the doctrine of the separation of the power estimated under the constitution; also befell parliamentary sovereignty, “Ray said.
Referring to three criminal laws, Ray said, they are “effective legislation pieces …
except for some” provisions of Draconia such as law related to incitement must be removed.
Some other provisions that violate human rights, civil liberties and privacy rights etc., can be amended.
“Questioning the interests allow the bill to come from parliament, Ray said,” Every formulation of certain special policies can be a prerogative of the selected government …
executives with service experts, can not be able to form a certain framework to present certain laws.
But two important constitutional compulsions must be obeyed by the executive – first, the bill must come from the House of Parliament.
Executives are released from originating from bills.
Second, on behalf of the achievement of “Quick Justice” executives are incompetent to do exercises to change all IPCs, CRPC and Indian evidence laws.
The criminal jurisprudence foundation cannot be dismantled by the executive, because it will fall from the rule of law, the doctrine of the separation of power and the basic structure of the Indian constitution.
“TMC MP has also warned the government towards unhappy by going about” comprehensive “changes in criminal law.” You can carefully record my submission mentioned above before starting a prime process of facie looks incorrect, without jurisdiction, and not Constitutional, “he showed at the end of a three-page letter detailed to Shah.